First let's be clear hear I too would like to see more enforcement activity in the field. My question is given the current fiscal situation how would folks pay for? (cut what other programs?)

JohnQ -
I agree that WDFW is top heavy. Part of that is due to how jobs are labeled but the issue here is how cutbacks generally occur which typically the tendancy is to protect higher level jobs. Unfortunately the situation in WDFW enforcement is no different - that program is also top heavy -
just one example in 2008 not counting the Chief, deputy chief and any WMS positions in the support staff at headquarters there were 39 sergeants and above for the 96 field officiers; a ratio of 2.5:1. The ICAP staffing study (the holy grail of enforcement staffing) calls for a ratio of 3.6:1.

Bushbear -
I sure that we all would like to see the State through the general fund step up and increase funding for more WDFW enforcement. However we have to face reality hear (at least in the short term) that is not likely to happen. Even in good times the State has avoided providing additional general fund $$.

So again in the short term where should the agency cut non-enforcement programs to provide funds to keep current or increase enforcement staffing levels? Further hatchery production reductions?, elimination of fisheries monitoring?, closing regional offices? etc. Each and everyone of those actions will result in reduced services or opportunities. As informed users what are our priorities?

You mentioned "FLSA restricts their work hours to about 171 hours/28 day work period." Actually I believe that agreement assures that each agent will be paid for 11 hours of overtime every 28 days. Additional overtime can and has been approved above those 11 hours (for example working holidays). One way to pay for getting those 7 positions recently lost would be to eliminate those 11 hours of overtime (yes I understand that the officiers would have to agree - however this is a good example of decisions that the agency has made that helped put the agency in the pickle it finds itself). Even at straight time those overtime hours would be enough to "buy-back" 6.5 of those 7 agent FTEs.

My point is just like the agency as a whole it is not inappropriate to look at and even question some of the fiscal priorities in enforcement's decisions on budget issues.

I do have another question - you mentioned that in the old days the Game department had 200 "officiers". Were those "commissioned officiers" or game wardens? At that time in additiion to the game wardens many of the agency employees (bios, wildlife area managers, etc) carried commissions.

Tight lines
Curt